But even better to have neither.

I'll disagree.

Absolutely, pay-to-win is bad - and totally warrants any community backlash.

Exp bonuses on the exclusive class items border on pay to win, don't they? Class items are not purely cosmetic in TTK. Exp isn't cosmetic like it was in Halo 3, it directly affects your skills and guns in Destiny.

If a game is a budget title or Free-To-Play and you want to sell me cosmetics? Cool. I might even buy some to help fund your continued support of the product. I'm against microtransactions in full-price, retail games though. One or the other, not both.

And if a film is geat, and you love it, wouldn't that make an "extended" or "Director's Cut" a violation of your "artistic integrity"?

It is usually the opposite, as the Director's Cut is done to preserve the integrity of the filmmaker's original vision, and is a version not constrained by anything other than what the original creative team wanted. The fact that some extended cuts and director's cuts are worse than the theatrical doesn't really negate that principle.

I could buy the Blu-Ray and get all of the bonus content, but what if I already had the film, and only wanted the Director's commentary? Would it be wrong for the studio to offer that as an individual purchase?

Not really, because the commentary is completely separate from the film.

I don't get why giving the consumer more options is a bad thing. It helped me out in this situation. :/

The answer is because games are art, and art is the product of the artist. Being able to mix and match what's in that art goes directly against the integrity of the work and the statement. Everybody should get the same game. I am sure you would be less than thrilled if someone only got a portion of your illustrations, rather than the whole thing as you intended it to be seen.

I think what Levi is trying to say is, that for the artist, micro-transactions are a better chance of the artists illustrations to get out into the world. At least in the example he gave, which I understand.

For the case of the CE editions of the Taken King. I'm most likely never going to experience the new dance moves because I don't want to pay for the full package deal. If there was a micro transaction for JUST the dance move for the titan, I might buy it. That, in my case is a better chance for the artist to get their work out into the world.

I also understand that point that was made that micro-transactions are very much so a lot of profit for a little work. But in reality, if people are willing to pay it, that commercialism right there.

Are you against alternate endings, then?

It seems odd to argue that, somehow, a different outfit to put onto Batman, or an alternate set of dance moves for your hero, is against artistic integrity. They're new content, that cost money to make. They didn't exist when the main game was made, so there's no argument that they should have been included for free from the start. If Bungie wants to sell them for money, well, that's just economy. They're not an artistic statement, not really. They're cosmetics. They don't effect the point of the game.

Wanting to be able to play as a chicken in a suit in Minecraft on 360 has nothing, bar nothing, to do with the artistic integrity or message of anyone, or anything. I just thought it was amusing, and my brother wanted other stuff in the skin pack, so it was worth paying for it, because it was cheap. If that makes sense?

And, why is offering them separately worse than offering them in a bundle? If you want to make a big statement, well, why is this bundle not encouraging the same wrath? Is it about integrity, which should imply that the bundle is also a rankle? Or is it about bad business practices, in which case, what's the problem with the practice, again?

I don't get why giving the consumer more options is a bad thing. It helped me out in this situation. :/

The answer is because games are art, and art is the product of the artist. Being able to mix and match what's in that art goes directly against the integrity of the work and the statement. Everybody should get the same game. I am sure you would be less than thrilled if someone only got a portion of your illustrations, rather than the whole thing as you intended it to be seen.

I don't think your examples line up with bonus skins. Exclusive levels or something like that? I'd totally agree with you. Bonus skins, to me, are more like coming out with alternative covers for your comic or something. You let the audience decide which one they like better, as people have different preferences, and it doesn't interfere with the actual comic inside. Some people don't even care about the cover - some see it as a commercial distortion of the true art inside.

I don't believe giving the audience options, as long as the core art is the same, is always bad. Referring to your example in a post above, some creators actually see 3D and 2D as different versions of the same thing, one not necessarily better than the other -just different- and thus offer both versions for whichever the viewer would best enjoy.

Personally, I don't go to the theater anymore because I rarely ever have a good experience. People are talking or texting, the film isn't in focus, it's so packed I'm in a shitty seat and hurting my neck the whole time, and so on. I usually leave flustered and wasn't able to immerse myself into the film. With Blu-rays and technology today, I have a better quality experience at home and don't have to deal with a distracting audience (other than my dog trying to figure out what the direwolves are saying). But if an author had absolute control over their film and say, never released their film on home video, I wouldn't be able to appreciate it as best as I could have if they had given me some options.

Connecting this back to my illustrations - I offer my comics in digital and print. I personally prefer print, but I understand a lot of people enjoy digital, and so I like having it as an option for them. As much as I want them to enjoy the same story, I have to draw a line somewhere. I can't sit and turn the pages for them or command them not to sit upside down on their couch and read it while monkeys dance around them trying to distract them. If my actual content is there, I'm fine with the audience choosing how they consume it.

Bonus skins, at least in a game like Destiny where we create our character, doesn't feel like it interferes with the core art. It feels more peripheral and up to the individual preferences. Really, none of our analogies work for this. It's a different medium with different aspects, especially a game where you play as 'your Guardian'.

If we were to somehow create a perfect analogy of this situation in comics, we'd have to imagine some futuristic online comic where the reader gets to customize the main character and then they appear like that in every panel. Let's say I was making this comic. I make a bunch of options for that character, make the rest of the story, and then release it. Later on I decided to make some more options for the character but don't alter the story at all. I don't think it would bother me at all artistically. It's just more options for more money, in addition to the options I already sold with the core book. It's additional content - not missing or interfering content, like new forward and cover in re-released novel. The audience can choose whether they want or need that additional content.

I don't get why giving the consumer more options is a bad thing. It helped me out in this situation. :/

The answer is because games are art, and art is the product of the artist. Being able to mix and match what's in that art goes directly against the integrity of the work and the statement. Everybody should get the same game. I am sure you would be less than thrilled if someone only got a portion of your illustrations, rather than the whole thing as you intended it to be seen.

If a game is being made by one person, I'd totally agree with you here.

But games (and this game in particular) are made by huge studios - and I really, really doubt that all of the hundreds of people who've contributed to the awesome product that is Destiny has the same artistic vision.

There is no monolith 'statement' that Destiny is making - it makes LOTS of statements. Some of them might say "we'd love it if you enjoyed our core experience" and some say "hey, isn't this shader cool? We know not everyone thinks so, and we don't want to force it on the character we said you could make your own... but we thought we'd make it available to folks who absolutely love it."

You're even okay with that, if I've understood your prior arguments. What you're NOT okay with is when they decide to put a price tag on it.

I think that's where we'll always disagree.

Had he made it, and Bungie not implemented it, would your experience feel compromised?

No.

- No text -

I don't have an answer. Maybe because this stuff has been largely off my radar till now. Are the tumbler Gjallerhorn PS Exculsives fun? Do Tumbling Gjallerhorning they provide even a second of entertainment? Then withholding that compromises your game. Maybe not a lot, but it does. If I made a game, and I made a thing that was even remotely cool, I would die at the thought of a player not having access to it potentially.

Even microtransactions are potential.